I allowed you to speak, so let me finish.
We are not going to sacrifice a principle that we consider to be fair because people might abuse it. That was a comment I wanted to make.
My question is for Mr. Waldman and Mr. Boulakia, who support creating an appeal division. Given that an appeal division would create a body of precedents, do you believe that it would help bring uniformity to decisions?
Many immigration lawyers in Quebec do not say so publicly, but they tell me that what we have is quite simply a board member lottery. When a client comes to them and asks them whether they have a chance of winning, they tell them that it depends on the board member, either way. Some judges reject practically everybody. When member Laurier Thibault made a decision about Abdelkader Belaouni, a resident of my riding, he rejected 98% of the people who appeared before him. I challenge anyone in this room to go before a judge knowing that they convict 98% of the people who appear before them. Everyone would say it's a charade. There is also the other extreme: some members accept everyone with no problem.
I would add that there are no precedents being created regarding substance. I am not talking about technical issues, that can be appealed to the Federal Court. Would creating an appeal division remedy this problem?